Transcription

1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Volume II Case Studies

2 Visit PD&R's Web Site to find this report and others sponsored by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R's Research Information Service, include listservs; special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); access to public use databases; hotline for help accessing the information you need.

3 Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Volume II of II Case Studies PREPARED FOR: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research AUTHORED BY: David Listokin Barbara Listokin Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers The State University of New Jersey RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY: National Trust for Historic Preservation Department of Law and Public Policy Tamar Osterman Bridget Hartman The Enterprise Foundation Planning, Design, and Development William Duncan Peter Werwath and Bradford J. White, Project Management Advisors Robert Kuehn, Keen Development Corporation Stephen Turgeon, Consultant Ioan Voicu, CUPR MAY 2001

5 Michael Lappin, The Community Preservation Corporation (CPC) John Leith-Tetrault, Community Partners (National Trust) Aaron Lewit, Enterprise Foundation Kelley Lindquist, Artspace Projects, Inc. Stanley Listokin, Executive Director, Masada Construction Stanley Lowe, Executive Director, Pittsburgh Housing Authority Weiming Lu, Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation Alan Mallach, City of Trenton, New Jersey, Department of Housing and Development Christy McAvoy, Historic Resources Group Bob McLoughlin and Helen Lopez, Albuquerque Housing Services Michael Mills, Ford Farewell Mills & Gatsch Architects D. Thomas Mistick, Mistick Construction William Mosher, Mile High Development Ronald F. Murphy, Stickney Murphy Romine Architects Jerry Myers, Pocatello, Idaho James Paley, Executive Director, Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven Bryan Park, Northwest Housing Resources (NHR) Sharon Park, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service Brian Patchan, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Perry Poyner Alley, Poyner Architects Jonathan F. P. Rose, Affordable Housing Construction Corp. Donovan Rypkema, Washington, D.C. Clark Schoettle, Providence Preservation Society Revolving Fund Howard B. Slaughter, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Kennedy Smith, National Main Street Center (National Trust) Robin Snyder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gary Stenson, MetroPlains Properties, Inc. Kathleen Taylor, Owner, Taylor Construction Services Pat Tiller, National Park Service Stephen Turgeon, Memphis, Tennessee Mike Turner, Professional Remodeler George Vallone, West Bank Realty Emily Wadhams, Burlington, Vermont Ronald Wells, Spokane, Washington Kathleen H. Wendler, Southwest Detroit Business Association Peter Werwath, The Enterprise Foundation Jim Wheaton, Chicago Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) Bradford J. White, Esq., Project Management Advisors, Inc. David Wood, Professional Remodeler We also gratefully acknowledge the patience and critical assistance provided by Edwin Stromberg, GTR at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Policy Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Mr. Stromberg is a consummate professional. Importance assistance was also provided by Tamar Osterman of the National Trust for Historic Preservation; William Duncan and Peter Werwath of the Enterprise Foundation; as well as other consultants to the study (Bradford J. White, Robert Kuehn, Stephen Turgeon, and Ioan Voicu). We also thank numerous unnamed professionals who attended two national review panels held in conjunction with the annual conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Lastly, we thank those working in the case study organizations for participating in this study. They gave generously of their time and expertise. Final responsibility for the contents of this report, however, rests with the authors alone. The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or polices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the U.S. Government.

6 Foreword The rehabilitation of the country's aging housing stock is a major resource for meeting the Nation's affordable housing needs. Large numbers of communities recognize this and use HUD, as well as other public and private resources, to address their affordable housing needs. These communities do this because of the demonstrated economic and social benefits of rehabilitation. Despite the demonstrated benefits of rehabilitation, there is potential for even greater use of the existing stock, not only to address affordable housing needs, but also to promote broader community revitalization goals. However, heretofore there has been a lack of in-depth research on the factors that act as barriers to rehabilitation of affordable housing. Gaining a sound understanding of the issue is difficult because barriers vary from project to project and from community to community. To address these concerns, HUD entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to examine the major barriers to urban rehabilitation. The result of this collaboration is this study, Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing, which is intended to fill this information gap and, in doing so, empower decision-makers and housing professionals to begin work to eliminate these barriers. The project's research team reviewed relevant literature, conducted case studies, and convened study groups of highly-qualified real estate developers, nonprofit leaders, architects and other professionals who face barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in their "real world" experiences. Volume I provide the context of the study as well as a synthesis of findings and technical analysis. Volume II presents the case studies in detail. The rehabilitation needs of our cities will continue to grow. The comparative advantages of housing made available through the rehabilitation of existing buildings will enhance the character of our housing stock in the years to come. Through this report and other activities, HUD will continue to encourage rehabilitation as a way to renew our cities and as a way to increase homeownership opportunities for all Americans. Lawrence L. Thompson General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

8 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES Our study of the barriers to the rehabilitation of affordable housing relied on multiple sources of information and data. These included the existing literature; the study s resource group, often contacted by telephone; and technical analyses, such as a review the low-income housing tax credit s (LIHTC) qualified allocation plan (QAP) criteria. Our analysis also drew from the research team s considerable rehab experience. The multiple sources provided an extensive base of information on the barriers to affordablehousing renovation; however, the sources had limits as to the amount and nature of information that could be covered. For example, because of time and other constraints, the telephone discussions with the resource group were not suitable for ascertaining the numerous modifications to, or evolution of, a specific rehab program. In addition, the telephone discussions did not allow for the face-to-face rapport that encourages a rehab developer or lender to give a candid, introspective evaluation of the problems encountered. Accordingly, the study included a series of case studies to assess the experiences of those doing rehab on a day-to-day basis. This volume describes the purpose of the case studies, details the case study organization, and provides, in Chapters 6 through 11, an account of each investigation. PURPOSE OF THE CASE STUDIES The purpose of the case studies is to add qualitatively to our understanding of the barriers to affordable-housing rehab. Over and above the information obtained from the telephone discussions, literature, and other sources, the case studies provide an in-depth and real world look at the hurdles faced by rehab projects. The resource group nominated many candidates for the case study investigations. The 11 programs chosen for study were selected on the basis of the following considerations: 1. Problems. The cases chosen all achieved considerable measures of success in their renovation activities, but they also had to overcome myriad problems. We focus on the hurdles that were encountered. 2. Strategic range. As described in volume 1, barriers to affordable-housing rehab can be grouped substantively into economic, development, construction, and occupancy hurdles. The 11 cases selected for the in-depth examination were chosen so that there was a representation of examples of a majority of the types of barriers. We also sought variety in the types of specific major issues encountered. Thus, some case studies predominately involve the building code, others historic preservation issues, and yet others lead-paint challenges. 3. Range of institutions. In selecting institutions for investigation the research team sought variety in type, size, and geographic location. 4. Availability. The candidates were asked whether they would be willing to participate in the on-site case studies. 1

9 Although we sought a variety of case studies, there is still a limited range. Only one investigation involved a local, private remodeler. The cases also lack rural representation. Study resources inhibited the ability to expand the case study range. The 11 case studies are listed below by location, name of organization, and the major barriers considered. Case Study Location Topic/Organization Barriers Considered State of Massachusetts Article 34 Progress and limitations of statewide rehab-sensitive building code; issues concerning historic preservation, seismic, and accessibility provisions New Haven, CT NHNHS Secretary of Interior Standards; pilot program for flexible standards Trenton, NJ Isles Barriers confronting nonprofit, including building code issues ( old New Jersey building code) Trenton, NJ Capital City Redevelopment Area Rehab issues ( old code) involving reuse of upperstory space Chester, NJ Asdal, Inc. Rehab issues confronting remodeler and benefits of New Jersey s new, rehab-sensitive building code South Brunswick, NJ Miami, FL Rural farmhouse conversion to cultural center Little Haiti Housing Association (LHHA) Rehab issues confronting reuse; highlights sensitive administration of New Jersey s old code Many issues confronting a nonprofit rehabilitating houses in Little Haiti Chicago, IL Varied Issues confronting adaptive mixed use Memphis, TN Varied Survey of range of issues confronting adaptive reuse and mixed-use rehabilitation Seattle, WA Varied Barriers to rehabilitation in a hot real estate market, including analysis of the impact of growth management Los Angeles, CA Varied Issues confronting rehabilitation of masonry buildings; benefits and limitations of moderate rehabilitation CASE STUDIES: FIELD PROTOCOL AND ORGANIZATION All of the 11 case studies were prepared or overseen by the research team. Two of the case studies were commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Bradford White conducted the Chicago case study for the Trust, and Stephen Turgeon conducted the Memphis investigation. The Los Angeles analysis was commissioned by the Enterprise Foundation. The remaining eight case studies were conducted by Rutgers University (with Robert Kuehn assisting Rutgers in the Massachusetts analysis). All of the Rutgers case studies were prepared by Dr. David Listokin and/or Dr. Barbara Listokin of the Center for Urban Policy Research. To ensure a consistency, a field protocol was developed that would be followed by all those administering the case studies. The protocol also specified the following organizational framework for the case study write-ups: 2

10 1. Summary of findings. This opening section provides a synopsis of each case study s major findings. 2. Background. This section sets the context for each case study and includes such considerations as the history of the organizations (e.g., Isles or LHHA) or legislation (e.g., Massachusetts s Article 34 or New Jersey s new rehab code) studied and an overview of the city or state setting. 3. Rehab description. Where applicable, information is provided on the scale and nature of the rehab activity. 4. Barriers to housing rehab. This section presents the barriers as illustrated in the case studies. The hurdles are presented following the analytic framework shown in summary exhibit 1 in the executive summary in volume 1: the economic barriers are presented first, followed by the hurdles to effecting renovation at the development, construction, and occupancy phases. CASE STUDY FINDINGS Although we conducted 11 case studies, only six are presented in this volume because of space limitations. The six, which are geographically dispersed, are Article 34 (Massachusetts), NHNHS (Connecticut), Isles (New Jersey), LHHA (Florida), Chicago (Illinois), and Seattle (Washington). All eleven case studies, however, are drawn from in the synthesis chapter (Chapter 2). The findings from the 11 case studies are also summarized in exhibit I.1. 3

11 DEVELOPMENT PHASE BARRIERS EXHIBIT I.1 Case Study Examples of the Barriers to Affordable-Housing Rehab Case Study NHNHS Acquisition Strategies Banks Property Liens Private Purchase FHA Sale in bulk unfeasible for NHNHS s smaller scale, and they are unwilling to outbid speculators Liens are sold in bulk often to investors and speculators they are not suitable for NHNHS s needs Impractical because of thousands of dollars owed on such properties. Also have trouble locating owners and getting them to sell, or owners overvalue their property High appraisal values are often above NHNHS s budget for property acquisition Isles City does not foreclose where there is a tax-rate certificate. Also, foreclosure is a lengthy process and the city does not properly secure properties against vandals and further deterioration Owners have to be located and often refuse to sell or overvalue their property. Liens must often be paid on properties as well FHA sale prices are too high above Isles s budget, and the sites are typically scattered LHHA Acquiring property through foreclosure is a lengthy process, exacerbating deterioration. More important, the title conveyed through this method is unrecognized Difficult to identify legal owners or to get realistic prices for the homes, considering the back taxes owed. Private owners rarely give options to buy, and they want to close quickly. The long turnaround time for public subsidies makes these high up-front costs difficult to cover As a result of recent changes to FHA fore-closures, LHHA is now competing against many others for homes, including high-bidding speculators, and is no longer receiving a 30 percent discount previously given to nonprofits. Memphis Banks are unwilling to use existing, unfinished buildings as collateral Asdal & Co. Difficult to find owners, clear title, and assemble properties Continued on next page 4

12 EXHIBIT I.1 (continued) DEVELOPMENT PHASE BARRIERS Case Study Isles LHHA Chicago Memphis Asdal & Co. Seattle Acquisition Strategies Eminent Domain Donation Other Acquisition Strategies Requirement for property valuation Rare; owners usually want compensation, or too much money is owned in liens at the time an area is designated as blighted means values are often too high City does not use eminent domain to acquire property for rehab Competing with market-rate developers for the same properties. Finding affordable properties in areas with sufficient residential support services is difficult. Difficult to convert nonresidential properties, and hard to find buildings suitable for 100 +/- units Speculation is a problem, especially once renovation has begun in an area; owners are hoping for much more than buildings are worth and prices are high. Absentee landlords are happy to do nothing Properties available for sale or rehab are often not in desirable areas. Price is another issue The hot market in Seattle has effectively driven up housing prices. It is often necessary to pay cash at closing and property owners want to close quickly. Attempts to assemble properties have also driven up prices Continued on next page 5

13 EXHIBIT I.1 (continued) DEVELOPMENT PHASE BARRIERS Case Study NHNHS Isles LHHA Chicago Los Angeles Memphis Asdal & Co. Seattle Acquisition Strategies Estimating Costs Insurance Land Use A problem in 95 percent of homes. Adds to the difficulties of rehab Challenging because every property is different, hidden construction needs add to costs, and there is often a delay between the original estimate and the onset of renovation Uncertainties in estimation arise from the fact that major systems (e.g., heat and plumbing) are often turned off, or from other unknowns, (e.g., termite damage) Architect fees are generally higher for rehab Los Angeles is in an inflationary spiral (at least at the time of this study). As prices began to increase during the construction boom that began in 1996, general contractors received higher and higher bids, which forced them to farm the work out to more subcontractors. The subcontractors were experiencing a labor shortage; they had to raise their prices and be more selective about the jobs they accepted. This increased the amount of the bids, since the bids were based on what the subcontractors hoped to make, and, thus, market estimates went up. Remodeling projects are complicated by constraints and asbestos/lead conditions. Builders typically prefer new construction Many contractors fear surprises like lead pipes or asbestos and hesitate to give numbers. The Fudge factor for unknowns is high, and pricing is coming in 50 percent higher than what was estimated It is common to underestimate expenses, often because of problems that arise once rehab has begun, e.g., unanticipated termite damage Inherent uncertainties in estimating rehab make it difficult, as does the practice of estimating on comparable jobs, since every building is different. But the speed with which estimating has to be done in many cases makes working with comps necessary. Access is sometimes limited, plans are typically absent and hazardous materials are often a factor Greater risk with rehab translates to higher liability and hazard insurance. Hurricane Andrew drove up prices and made insurance difficult to obtain Because some buildings are located in highcrime neighborhoods, full-time security guards, dogs, and razor-wire fencing may be required Insurance is expensive, but not difficult to obtain Parking requirements are difficult to meet in some places, as are other requirements in the local zoning code. Obtaining zoning approval for adaptive reuse was difficult in one instance because of community opposition Need to provide parking is a serious issue, especially in downtown rehab. Acceptable means of providing close parking, such as an underground facility or in a garage, are prohibitively expensive Difficulty in obtaining variances in adaptive reuse and NIMBY-ism for in-fill rehab projects in general Parking requirements have been a detriment to doing rehab in Seattle: space is at a premium and adding parking in existing structures is difficult. Another barrier is the mandate that all construction must include 20 percent open space. Retrofitting an existing structure with 20 percent more space is a challenge Continued on next page 6

14 DEVELOPMENT PHASE BARRIERS EXHIBIT I.1 (continued) Case Study Financing Historic Tax Credits (HTC) NHNHS Isles LHHA Chicago A reasonable cost limit penalty places a ceiling on the amount of money allowed per unit to be eligible for some subsidies. This can work to the disadvantage of Isles because the smaller construction scale, historic nature, variability and higher amenity of rehab, community infrastructure, and general urban mission make the cost per unit exceed that ceiling Subsidies are necessary but competitive, have ancillary costs, and pose timing difficulties. LHHA projects are contingent upon the Miami-Dade Co. surtax program, CDBG, HOME, HOPE, AHP from FHLB, and tax credits. Low appraisals are often a hardship for LHHA s financing Most financing barriers pertained to the amount of time the application and approval process takes and the need to have control of a building to apply for financing. A developer may have to control a building for 12 to 18 months or more before financing is closed and construction can begin. This is especially difficult for nonprofits because of the general lack of predevelopment funds. Only a limited number of banks meet CIP (Community Investment Program) requirements. There is a lack of coordination between city and state processes Use of HTCs requires certain trade-offs between preservation and practicality. Preservation is usually more expensive The availability of many other sources of funds and the subsequent reduction of state and local funds when using HTC reduces its use. Applicability is limited by economic substance requirements under the IRS code. The need to preserve interior partitions, ceilings, plaster, and trim is a significant challenge when using HTC for adaptive reuse Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) LIHTC is limited statewide, and NHNHS has kept their annual request constant, despite rising rehab costs, for fear of losing it outright Meeting the scoring criteria for LIHTCs (including scoring additional points for more bedrooms, energy efficiency, larger units, or other amenities) is increasingly necessary to gain the subsidy; however, meeting the criteria is more difficult when dealing with a rehab project The smaller scale of units in an LHHA project does not reach the critical scale of 100 units typically funded by LIHTCs The city of Chicago has LIHTC funds allocated by statute, application is typically made to the city rather than to the state. TC investor will sometimes not put money into a rehab project because of the uncertainty of certification until after the building is placed in service. Some investors discount the pricing of the LIHTC because of certification risks Memphis Asdal & Co. Seattle Many of the rehab projects in this study are in mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail. Finding retail tenants has proven to be difficult, but necessary, especially in the smaller buildings where the space makes up a significant portion of the floor area and constitutes a significant portion of the building s revenue. Banks are reluctant to finance both buildings downtown and older buildings. Appraisals are not high enough for the amount of work going into the building Low loan-to-value ratios and higher fees and interest rates increase financing costs. Appraisers have difficulty finding comparable properties and do not understand many of the environmental costs Because of the uncertainties and challenges that accompany rehab, lenders typically demand a higher project contingency factor, higher hard- and soft-costs estimates, and a construction team with greater expertise A tension between qualifying for HTCs and satisfying the market often arises, making the use of HTCs difficult or impossible Continued on next page 7

15 CONSTRUCTION PHASE BARRIERS EXHIBIT I.1 (continued) Case Study Building Code Access Seismic/Lead/Asbestos Historic Davis-Bacon Trades Relocation NHNHS Isles LHHA Chicago Capital City Redevelopment (Trenton) The percent rule (i.e., more rehab increases requirements) in the New Jersey code adds to costs; however, recent changes that affect existing buildings help to alleviate the problem LHHA has experienced long delays in applying for electrical, plumbing, and other permits. Use of some public subsidies requires full compliance with minimum housing standards, leading to costly replacement of still-usable items, such as a ceramic-tile roof Sprinkler requirements are costly in anything but substantial rehab, and the installation of fire alarms adds to costs. Loft conversions over four stories must meet high-rise codes, which adds significantly to costs Because their level of rehab required compliance with new-construction code standards, the building in question needed two means of egress. Compliance was difficult because of costs, historic requirements, and reconfiguration constraints Can add to the costs Environmental issues are sometimes confronted, but NHNHS manages to deal relatively painlessly with lead and asbestos Handicap access (elevators and stairwells) can be difficult to provide and costly Lead-paint abatement forces higher costs substantial rehab In moderate rehab, encapsulation, lead-paint abatement, and removal of storage tanks can significantly increase the budget NHNHS needs more flexibility in meeting historic preservation requirements as they often delay the rehab or add to the costs. Mandating such things as wooden window replacements, as opposed to vinyl, significantly impacts the costs of rehab Isles is sensitive to historic preservation needs, but it needs greater flexibility in historic preservation controls to keep rehab affordable, especially when working on a building s interior. Historic preservation compliance and leadpaint abatement have also been at odds The use of federal funds for acquisition-rehab purposes evokes the Section 106 process to determine historical significance. This process can be lengthy and has sometimes left LHHA in a costly limbo 8 Can add to costs Were LHHA to use federal monies for rehab, they would have to pay prevailing wages more than they currently pay Can increase rehab costs 30 percent to 40 percent Construction jobs above a certain dollar threshold must be publicly bid, so NHNHS sometimes cannot ensure that they are working with the most experienced and competent urban rehab company Difficulty in securing medium-sized contracting firms The scale of LHHA s jobs is usually too small for subcontractors, but they often have trouble keeping their in-house crew sufficiently at work. Also, the small scale often means higher material and delivery costs Bringing contractors into compliance and helping them complete paperwork can unexpectedly add to costs If HOME money is used for rehab construction, then relocation expenses must be paid for both legal and illegal tenants Continued on next page

16 CONSTRUCTION PHASE BARRIERS EXHIBIT I.1 (continued) Case Study Building Code Access Seismic/Lead/Asbestos Historic Davis-Bacon Trades Relocation Los Angeles Requires compliance with substantial rehab requirements Upgrades not required of the low- or mid-cost options. Necessary for the high-cost option Some of the buildings have seismic reinforcement, but for those without it, this expense adds considerably to the cost for rehab, often making it unfeasible. Asbestos is an issue in many of these buildings If the guidelines apply to the project, cost is estimated to rise 15 percent to 30 percent Becomes an issue if a midto high-cost option is used since many of the buildings are inhabited Memphis Difficult to acquire a variance for operable windows. Another obstacle is the requirement for two stairways to achieve fire ratings Requires more imagination Difficult to make old buildings conform to the current seismic requirements The limited availability of contractors, especially for small jobs, in a tight construction market was a general barrier and drove up costs significantly in recent years Asdal & Co. Restrictive codes drive up rehab costs, often significantly Asdal has encountered complications due to seismic and nuclear testing and lead-paint requirements Higher skill levels necessary for quality rehab. There is a paucity of training Seattle Despite a fairly flexible building code and general support for rehab, the threshold for meeting newconstruction standards is often imposed. New-construction fire and safety standards can drastically increase the cost of rehab. a factor is the requirement that an entire mixed-use Also building meet the code if the residential rehab on upper floors triggers the substantial alteration standard Creativity of design and flexibility are often necessary to meet access requirements Retrofitting existing buildings to strict seismic protections is a challenge. Often, residents must vacate for the rehab to be completed. Asbestos containment can be expensive if ceiling layouts have to be altered Review time for projects can be lengthy The hot construction market makes it difficult to hire competent contractors, who are generally spoken for by larger companies. Smaller companies are less sophisticated and encounter such issues as difficulty in getting bonding 9

17 CASE STUDIES 11

18 12

19 CHAPTER 6 Rehab Barrier Case Study: State of Massachusetts Article 34 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Massachusetts is regarded as a leader in adopting regulations that foster rehab of existing buildings (Pierlert 1981). A prime example of this is Article 34 of the Massachusetts State Code. Article 34 replaced the rigid percent rule (i.e., new-building standards are mandated by rehab investment exceeding 50 percent of the building s value) with a much more flexible standard. This case study focuses on the accomplishments and limitations of Article 34 and other regulations governing rehab in Massachusetts. Regulation of additions to and repair, alteration, and change of use of existing buildings under Article 34 is proceeding with relative success in Massachusetts. Following are some of the comments made by experts interviewed by the authors: Article 34 provides an effective framework for looking at each project and an avenue to work out solutions. Article 34 generally works well, especially compared to the percent rule that was absolutely wrong. and Article 34 provides latitude in making decisions. (Persons interviewed are included in the references section.) While Article 34 and its accomplishments are to be lauded, the article does have limitations. These are described below. Lack of Awareness/Need for Training One problem regarding the use of Article 34 is that building officials are frequently not fully aware of its provisions and how it works. Coupled with this is the overall need for more training for building officials at the local level and more staff at state and local levels. When Article 34 was first adopted, an outreach program provided some information and training for local building officials. This training has been cut back, however, and what is currently not well understood is the intent of the code and the details of its regulations. Unnecessary Requirements When an extensive rehab project (in terms of expense) is contemplated, code officials sometimes demand building improvements that go beyond the standards specified in Article 34. Thus, the percent rule in effect sometimes lingers. The building owner and the architect will often comply with more than the code requires so as to move the project along and not antagonize code officials. This situation of building officials demanding more than what is required by the code is aggravated by inadequate training. Coordination with Fire Protection Regulations Better coordination with fire officials and linkage of the fire code requirements and Article 34 would result in an improved system in Massachusetts. As things stand now, there is some conflict. Also, as the fire protection requirements have increased (e.g., making sprinklers 13

20 mandatory with substantial rehab), the flexibility of responding to Article 34 through compliance alternatives (e.g., installing sprinklers as an alternative to enclosing a stairway) has diminished for the rehab of existing properties. Issues beyond Article 34 Access and Historic Preservation Provisions Massachusetts General Law, chapter 22, section 13A, mandates rules and regulations for accessibility and establishes the Architectural Access Board (AAB). The fact that the AAB s standards are different from and more restrictive than the requirements of ANSI A-117.1, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Amendment adds considerable complexity to rehab projects. Furthermore, it has been reported that bringing matters before the AAB tends to add significant delays (90 days minimum). Involvement with the accessibility regulations may be preventing some rehab projects from proceeding. It is clear that greater coordination between the Architectural Access Board and the Board of Building Regulations and Standards, Article 34, is needed. Historic rehab in Massachusetts is fostered by section 635, which establishes building code requirements for historic properties in the state. The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Historic Preservation (SISHP) also can affect the rehab of historic buildings (e.g., when federal historic rehab tax credits are used). Overall, the SISHP have been flexibly administered in Massachusetts, but there are instances in which the application of these standards raises issues with respect to effecting affordable-housing rehab and adaptive reuse. BACKGROUND TO ARTICLE 34 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE In 1972, the Massachusetts state legislature decided that there should be a statewide uniform building code instead of separate regulations set by each community. Chapter 802 of the Acts of 1972 authorized a statewide code that would apply uniformly throughout the Commonwealth. The statewide code included a percent rule : if the rehab expense exceeded one-half the value of the building being renovated, the entire building would have to be brought up to the standards for new construction. The 1970s saw an increase of rehab and reuse activity in Massachusetts. (This state has the nation s oldest housing stock and is a leader in adaptive reuse). The percent rule, however, became increasingly problematical to renovation investment in this state. The following example is illustrative (Ferro 1993). In 1974, a six-unit Cambridge apartment building was slated for rehab. The renovation budget of $38,000 (in 1974 dollars) would modernize the building and remove hazards by converting the building s heating system from space heaters to modern central heat; rehabilitating all bathrooms, kitchens, plumbing, and wiring; installing a new roof; and removing hazardous lead paint. Yet, this plan was thwarted by the building code. Enter now the building inspector. Having determined that the proposed investment, under the percent rule, required full compliance with the new-building code, the inspector had no choice but to make additional demands. First, since the building contained two halves, each with three apartments, the 14

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Volume I Finding and Analysis Visit PD&R's Web Site www.huduser.org

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Return Service Requested U.S. DepartmentSeptember of Housing2006 and Urban Development FIRST-CLASS MAIL POSTAGE & FEES PAID HUD PERMIT NO. G-795 BEST PRACTICES

Design Guidelines, Historic Districts and Codes as Downtown Development Tools The NC Rehab Code and Its Benefits for Older Buildings North Carolina Main Street Conference January 25-27, 2012 History of

September 2008 Volume 7 Issue 5 Land Banks and Affordable Housing You can hardly turn on the news today without hearing a report that the number of foreclosed properties continues to rise nationwide. In

Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program Guidelines City of Middletown Department of Planning, Conservation and Development Community Development Division February 1999 Table of Contents Purpose 1 General

Incentives for Historic Preservation Historic places help define the character of our communities by providing a tangible link with the past. Today, historic districts around the country are experiencing

FOSTER, MAINTAIN AND REMOVE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OBSTACLES FOR THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS There are numerous hurdles related to affordable housing and obstacles for those with special needs.

Why does TBI matter? The Troubled Buildings Initiative has opened the door to a wide range of new or previously underutilized techniques for saving at-risk buildings: buying notes and mortgages, then completing

9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507 www.culvercity.org Construction Permitting Guidelines for Businesses Moving into Existing Buildings in Culver City If your business is moving into an existing

NHT Use of NSP and Weatherization Funds to Preserve and Improve Multifamily Housing Background At the outset, it s important to recognize that both NSP and weatherization funds are not limited to single

State Statewide for all buildings 1 State Level Adoption Statewide for state owned/funded buildings 2 Adoption at local level 3 Local Adoption Locals can make more restrictive Is there a Legislative State

LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM OVERVIEW September 2015 TAX CREDIT OVERVIEW The credit is a 10-year tax incentive to encourage the development of residential rental housing at or below 60% of area

Acquiring Bank Owned Foreclosures The news and local conversations are full of stories about investors getting great deals on foreclosed houses. Why wouldn t affordable housing providers want to do the

Rhode Island Housing Page 1 of 3 Opting Out is Not an Option The preservation of our scarce inventory of affordable apartments has always been a priority for Rhode Island Housing. Faced with record-high

Chenango County Code Enforcement Building Permit, Fire Inspection and Operating Permit Fee Schedule Building Permit Exceptions: Buildings being used solely for the purpose of agriculture. As per Agricultural,

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAMS in New York City A Guide to Basic Program Rules and Eligibility FEBRUARY 2011 ABOUT ENTERPRISE Enterprise is a leading provider of the development capital and

Federal Tax Credits for Historic Preservation Introduction The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive is described here in general terms only. More detailed information, including copies of application

Chapter 54 Real Property Management INTRODUCTION Property management is one of the fastest growing areas of specialization in real estate. As more institutional investors diversify their portfolios, they

Sales and Use Tax Treatment of Construction Contractors Throughout the States by Dan Davis, MBA (Tax), CPA, CFE Construction: General Rule Although the wording may differ from state to state, a construction

FULTON COUNTY/CITY OF ATLANTA LAND BANK AUTHORITY, INC. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NSP DEVELOPERS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. If we are looking to rehabilitate the properties for both sale and rental,

ATTACHMENT C FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES There are three ways that the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides assistance in the development

CITY OF HICKORY HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM 1.0 INTRODUCTION Housing rehabilitation is a term applied to the repair and improvement of homes that have fallen into a substandard condition. The principle

Who Are We? Homes Re-Imagined is a full service professional real estate solutions company located in the Northern Virginia area. Founded in 2014 as a family enterprise by John P. Bradford and Dorann Bradford,

State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation A State-by-State Summary www.nationaltrust.org policy@nthp.org 202-588-6167 Chart last updated: July 2007 States with income tax incentives States that do not

Somerville Commons Gerry Frank, a self-employed 44-year old registered architect in Boston, hit the Powerball lottery for an after tax payout of ten million dollars on April 1, 2011. The timing was fortuitous

Understanding SRO January 2001 The Single Room Occupancy (SRO) program is authorized by Section 441 of the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Under the program, HUD enters into Annual Contributions

SLIDE 1 OUT OF 42 R THE BASICS: 203(k) FHA Standard 203(k) Andrew Allen SLIDE 2 OUT OF 42 FHA 203K Questions 203k Explained What is the FHA 203(k) Loan Program? What are the program guidelines? What types

Community Investment Plan (CIP) 2014-2016 SECTION 1: Community or constituency to be served by the organization The Downtown Taunton Foundation (DTF) is a place-based nonprofit Community Development Corporation

Solar barriers to entry for low and middle Income Marylanders: Identifying roadblocks and proposing solutions While Maryland ranks 14 th in the nation is solar capacity installed and the state has established

CITY OF NEWARK SECTION 108 LOAN PROGRAM DRAFT PROGRAM GUIDELINES As approved on 7/28/13 by HUD and written on 9/15/14 A Program Financed Under the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Section

A Residential Redevelopment Company Home Selling Guide Who Are We? Caymus Realty Solutions is a full service professional real estate solutions company located in the north Pittsburgh region. Founded in

Why does the renovation and expansion of an EXISTING SCHOOL sometimes cost about the SAME or MORE than the construction of a NEW SCHOOL? 1. BASIC FACTS: The current Abington High School building is 111,831

Ninth Street Historic Park Acknowledgements This project was paid for in part by a State Historical Fund grant from the Colorado Historical Society. The contents contained herein do not necessarily reflect

Home Buyers Insurance Checklist Shopping for your dream house? There are many considerations when looking at real estate, such as property taxes, school district, available recreational opportunities in

Creating More Affordable Housing in Chicago The Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago (HBAGC) supports increasing the availability of affordable housing in the City of Chicago and strongly encourages

General Assembly Substitute Bill No. 318 February Session, 2010 * SB00318CE 042110 * AN ACT CONCERNING CHANGES TO CERTAIN HOUSING STATUTES. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

THE CITY OF NEW YORK INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE 110 WILLIAM STREET, 14 TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 J-51 Property Tax Exemptions and Abatements June 4, 2003 OVERVIEW New York City provides owners of

PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES By Jay Reich, Stacey Crawshaw-Lewis and Deanna Gregory Public development authorities, or PDAs, can be established by cities or counties pursuant to RCW 35.21.730 et seq.

Gustav/Ike Hurricane Recovery COMPETITIVE AFFORDABLE RENTAL PROGRAM Program Made Possible By Louisiana Recovery Authority, The Office Of Community Development s Disaster Recovery Unit And U.S. Department

CITY OF CHICAGO SMALL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT FUND (SBIF) PROGRAM RULES The City of Chicago s Small Business Improvement Fund is a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) program, which will reimburse building owners

FHA TAX CREDIT PILOT LOAN COMMITTEE (PLC) GUIDE As Of February 2014 I. Background This document provides an overview of the responsibilities, procedures, composition and authority of the Tax Credit Pilot

Renovation Your Guide Through the Process Renovation Financing: An Investment in the Future TABLE OF CONTENTS An Investment in the Future.......... 1 An Opportunity for Everyone......... 2 Who can benefit

Real Estate Professionals with Heart Home Selling Guide Who Are We? KForce Home Solutions is a full service professional real estate solutions company located in Little Elm, Texas. KForce Home Solutions

OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY GUIDELINES FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM The Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program consists of four distinct programs. These

Article 5: Building Regulations Division 37: Additional Building Regulations for Archaic Materials and Methods of Construction (Added Additional Building Regulations for Archaic Materials and Methods of

INVESTMENT & REAL ESTATE SERVICES Who We Are A trusted advisor. A consistent presence. A valued resource. Forest City Investment Management & Real Estate Services is the investment management and third-party

How to Improve Odds of Success in Municipal Economic Development Advanced Municipal Elected Officials Institute February 4, 2014 What is Municipal Economic Development? A municipality s economic development

ADMINISTRATION PLAN for the Franklin County Revolving Loan Fund I. PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN A. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The primary purpose of the Franklin County Revolving Loan Fund, hereafter known as

Renovation Your Guide Through the Process Renovation Financing: An Investment in the Future TABLE OF CONTENTS An Investment in the Future.......... 1 An Opportunity for Everyone......... 2 Who can benefit

CHAPTER IV REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FOR HOUSING PROJECT MANAGEMENT Each individual housing project rehabilitation must have its own file that contains documents that DED requires to ensure the successful completion